| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | t-ishii(at)sra(dot)co(dot)jp |
| Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: [HACKERS] sort on huge table |
| Date: | 1999-10-19 14:17:06 |
| Message-ID: | 9100.940342626@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Tatsuo Ishii <t-ishii(at)sra(dot)co(dot)jp> writes:
> It worked with 2GB+ table but was much slower than before.
> Before(with 8MB sort memory): 22 minutes
> After(with 8MB sort memory): 1 hour and 5 minutes
> After(with 80MB sort memory): 42 minutes.
Oh dear. I had tested it with smaller files and concluded that it was
no slower than before ... I guess there is some effect I'm not seeing
here. Can you tell whether the extra time is computation or I/O (how
much does the runtime of the backend change between old and new code)?
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Jan Wieck | 1999-10-19 14:23:38 | Re: [HACKERS] Re: New developer globe |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 1999-10-19 14:13:45 | Re: [HACKERS] Re: New developer globe |